June
12, 2003

In a rare split, the Village Planning Commission agreed
on Monday to recommend that Village Council create a new zoning district
to accommodate larger houses.

At its meeting June 9, plan board approved 4–1
a recommendation to establish Residence A1, in which lots would be required
to have a minimum lot width, or frontage, of 75 feet. John Struewing,
the commission chairman, and members Cy Tebbetts, Bruce Rickenbach and
George Pitstick, Council’s representative on the board, voted yes;
Dawn Johnson voted no. There was no comment from residents during the
public hearing.

This was one of the few times this Planning Commission
did not approve a measure unanimously.

The four board members in favor of the new zoning district
said that they supported providing an extra zoning “tool”
to help create a wider variety of zoning areas in the village.

But Johnson was concerned that the new district would
in effect encourage the development of neighborhoods with larger and more
expensive homes. “I’m concerned we’re establishing an
opportunity to segregate our community further than it is already being
segregated,” she said.

Plan board first considered creating the new district
when they recommended that the Village reduce the frontage requirements
in its three residential zoning districts. Council agreed, changing, in
part, the lot-width standard in Residence A to 60 feet from 75. The frontage
requirement in Residence B is now 50 feet, and Residence C is 45.

One of Johnson’s concerns was that while a 60-foot
minimum could always be raised according to individual needs, the 75-foot
minimum could not be lowered to accommodate a smaller property with smaller
needs.

“We’re
essentially limiting the potential for the number of houses that could
be built,” Johnson said. “We’re encouraging a more wealthy
demographic.”

Other plan board
members responded by emphasizing the fact that the proposed standards
for Residence A1 existed for over 20 years without a problem. Struewing
also reminded the group that each zoning change or new zoning district
must be approved by the commission, thereby building in a safeguard for
unintended zoning. And the districts within one 10-acre plot could always
be mixed, Rickenbach added.

The A1 district also
allows families with children to have larger properties, Pitstick said.
He said that he doubted the larger lot size would attract a more affluent
set of elderly or double-income families because they wouldn’t have
time to maintain the larger property.

“There is a
real advantage to creating an area that facilitates families,” he
said.

Johnson maintained
that the minimal acreage of developable land in the community coupled
with rising prices on larger lots could bring about some “unintended
consequences.”

Council will hold
a first reading on the recommendation at its next meeting, June 16.

* * *

In other Planning
Commission business:

• Frank Douglas
of TEC Engineering presented a variety of preliminary observations from
the U.S. 68 traffic study, which began last month. Though not all the
data has been collected, the commission scheduled a special meeting on
July 28 to receive public input on the study’s data analysis, which
will be presented that evening. The study coordinators will then incorporate
public response and plan board’s input into a final report that
will be released at the end of August.

Some of the data
that has been collected so far includes inventorying traffic signals,
sight distance measurements and street parking. The next steps will be
to analyze accident data over the past three years, complete traffic counts,
inventory lighting and analyze the geometrics of the U.S. 68 corridor.

The consultants have
already observed several things that concerned residents and Village officials
about the corridor in the past. They found that the street’s signals
were too small, outdated and noncompliant with the current code. The Village
has received a State grant to replace the traffic lights on U.S. 68.

The current data
also showed that the through truck traffic in the central business district
was very obstructive, bikepath crossing was underemphasized, and the pedestrian
crossing signs at Short Street were confusing and obstructive.

• Rickenbach
and Tebbetts presented a draft of an ordinance containing the purpose
and conditional uses for the mixed use zoning district, or district for
a commerce park. The two commission members used the draft that former
plan board member Steve Heckart had written, recommending that a few changes
be made.

They proposed that
the uses not be restricted to either research and development business
or light manufacturing, but that both be encouraged. The commission also
discussed whether dwelling units should be allowed in the district.

Plan board will continue
to discuss the commerce park district as well as the site plan review
ordinance and the building impediment survey at its next regular meeting
on July 14.